BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 081f Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF JOY MARTHA LA NAUZE

ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

29 FEBRUARY 2016

1. SUMMARY

1.1. My name is Joy Martha LaNauze. I am providing planning rebuttal evidence in relation to Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical areas) (Topic 081) in relation to the Takanini precinct on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council).

1.2. I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of the following submitters in relation to the Takanini precinct for Topic 081:

(a) New Zealand Defence Force (submission 838-47);

(b) Takanini Central Limited (submissions 4986-2, 4986-3 and 4986-4);

(c) TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited (submissions 4885 and FS1180);

(d) Transpower New Zealand Limited (submissions 3766-348, 3766-349, and 3766- 350); and

(e) Wallace Group Limited (submission 4749-2).

1.3. Having read and considered that evidence, I remain of the opinion that the precinct provisions attached to my Evidence Report dated 2 February 2016 remain the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), with the exception of the following amendments:

(a) I agree with the proposal by Mr Smith and Mr Rae for TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited to amend the MU zone height in sub-precinct C to 18m ; and

(b) I agree with the proposal by Mr Smith for TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited to provide for cinemas as a permitted activity in sub-precinct C; and

(c) I agree in part with the evidence of Ms Baverstock for the New Zealand Defence Force to alter the provisions of the sub-precinct D to better reflect the objectives and policies from Section 5B.2.2.7.1.2. Papakura Military Camp and the rules contained in Part 16 of the Papakura District Plan in the objectives, policies, rules, development controls and assessment criteria. 2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. My name is Joy Martha LaNauze. I am providing planning rebuttal evidence in relation to Topic 081 on the Takanini precinct. I have the qualifications and experience set out in my Evidence Report dated 2 February 2016.

2.2. This Rebuttal Report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014.

2.3. In preparing this Rebuttal Report I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of submitters to Topic 081 relating specifically to the Takanini precinct. This Rebuttal Report addresses various matters raised in that evidence.

3. SCOPE

3.1. The following five submitters have filed eight statements of evidence in relation to the Takanini precinct:

(a) New Zealand Defence Force (submission point 838-47):

(i) K Baverstock (planning).

(b) Takanini Central Limited (submission points 4986-2, 4986-3 and 4986-4):

(i) M Hallikeri (planning).

Although, I note that Mr Hallikeri’s evidence at paragraph 4.4(i) refers to a statement of evidence of Garth Falconer for Takanini Central Limited for Topic 081 dated 10 February 2016 I have been unable to locate that evidence on the AUPIHP website.

(c) TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited (submission number 4885 and FS1180):

(i) B Hall (traffic);

(ii) T Heath (retail economic);

(iii) N Rae (urban design); and

(iv) V Smith (planning). (d) Transpower New Zealand Limited (submission points 3766-348, 3766-349, and 3766-350):

(i) S Allan (planning).

(e) Wallace Group Limited (submission point 4749-2):

(i) V Smith (planning).

3.2. I note that four of the five submitters who have provided evidence in respect of the Takanini precinct have also lodged evidence (in relation to submission points) seeking the rezoning of some of the land within the Takanini precinct. These submission points and evidence statements are considered in the joint statement of evidence of myself, Danni Maree Briggs, and Anna Fay Jennings dated 26 January 2016 for the rezoning part of Topic 081 in relation to Urban South. These four submitters seek as follows:

(a) Takanini Central Limited (submission point 4986-1): that the northern part of 55 Takanini School Road in sub-precinct A be zoned Light Industry (LI) and the southern part of Takanini School Road be rezoned from Single House (SH) to Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS);

(b) Wallace Group Limited (submission point 4769-1): to rationalise the zoning and site boundaries so that the entirety of 296 Porchester Road is zoned LI rather than a slither of southern part of the site being zoned SH in sub-precinct A;

(c) TONEA Properties NZ Limited (submission point 4885-4): to rezone 30 Walters Road from Mixed Use (MU) to Town Centre (TC) in sub-precinct C;

(d) New Zealand Defence Force (submission 838-46): the rezoning of the designated New Zealand Defence Force Land in the block of Walters and Grove Roads from SH to MU in the western part of sub-precinct E.

3.3. I wish to make a correction to my Evidence Report in relation to 137 Airfield Road in sub-precinct D.

3.4. In paragraph 12.26 of my Evidence Report, I supported the removal of 137 Airfield Road from Takanini sub-precinct D (as requested by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland (submission point 5256-162)) and its rezoning to Special Purpose School zone. I now note that in Bruce Young’s rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council for Topic 080 in relation to Special Purpose: School Zones, dated 26 January 2016, he does not support the rezoning of the site at 137 Airfield Road to Special Purpose: School zone because resource consent has not yet been granted for a school on the site. I consider that 137 Airfield Road land can however remain excluded from sub-precinct D. While it is part of the operative Glenora Structure Plan, which shows an indicative road between the site and the land to its west, rather than a precinct plan requirement for an indicative road being required, I consider that the recent subdivision layout of the land to the west of 137 Airfield Road provides for any consideration of links between the sites to be undertaken when 137 Airfield Road is developed. I now agree with Mr Young that this land should remain zoned MHS rather than Special Purpose School zone.

3.5. I address the matters raised in other parties’ evidence based on the overall precinct and also to the geographic sub-precinct areas to which they relate.

4. OVERALL PRECINCT /FRAMEWORK PLANS

Matters raised in evidence – New Zealand Defence Force

4.1. Ms Baverstock, in her planning evidence on behalf of the New Zealand Defence Force (submission 838-47) at paragraphs 15 and 54, states that she supports the removal of reference to framework plans in the Takanini precinct provisions which I support in my Evidence Report.

5. TAKANINI SUB-PRECINCT A

Matters raised in evidence

5.1. Mr Smith in his evidence for Wallace Group Limited seeks the modification of both Takanini precinct plans 1 and 2 to remove part of the indicative roads shown, as he considers that subdivision and the development of the first stage of a data centre at 296 Porchester Road have made it impractical to locate the north-south road in the location shown on the precinct plans.

5.2. M Hallikeri for Takanini Central Limited in paragraphs 16.6 16.7, 16.8, and 16.9 of evidence for Takanini Central Limited seeks the inclusion of provisions in Takanini Sub- precinct A to provide for residential activities ancillary to retail, ancillary retail, studio warehousing and office activities to achieve an overall mix of Mixed Use and Light Industry Activities to provide an effective transition zone between the residential activity to the south and heavy industrial activity to the north.

Analysis

Wallace Group Limited

5.3. I am aware that development of a data centre at 296 Porchester Road has occurred.

5.4. As I state in paragraph 12.7 of my Evidence Report, I do not consider that it is necessary to amend the landscape plan (precinct plan 2) given that Takanini precinct plan 1 is annotated with a note which advises that the exact alignment of reserves, roads etc will be determined at the time of subdivision. For the same reason, I do not consider it now necessary to amend Takanini precinct plan 1 either.

5.5. I consider that an indicative north-south road is still required in the precinct, so should remain on the precinct plans. I consider that it is important to retain indicative reserves, roads etc on greenfield precinct plans to guide the resource consent and subdivision processes which are the appropriate places to determine exactly where reserves, roads etc are required and can be constructed.

5.6. I note that Mr Duguid in his planning evidence on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 080 – Precincts – General, dated 3 December 2015, states:

5.4 The precincts included in the PAUP vary considerably from one another. Some establish a framework for the development of large areas of greenfield or brownfield land (e.g. Flat Bush and New Lynn), while others are more activity or site-specific (e.g. Boat Building and Auckland Museum). The former are more likely to have a finite life within the PAUP, while the latter may be required well into the future.

Takanini Central Limited

5.7. The submitter seeks that activity modifications be made which would apply to the whole of Takanini sub-precinct A. This does not differentiate between the activities in the industrial and residential parts of the sub-precinct. The operative provisions for sub- precinct A do differentiate between the industrial and residential parts of the sub- precinct. 5.8. Neither the operative Residential 8 provisions nor the proposed Single House provisions provide for retail, studio warehousing or offices.

5.9. Residential (with qualifications) and Studio Warehousing (with qualifications) are both provided for as discretionary activities in operative Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6. Ancillary retail (with qualifications) and ancillary offices (with qualifications) are both provided for as a controlled activity.

5.10. The LI zone (as proposed in the tracked changes attached to the Closing Remarks on behalf of the Council for Topic 051 to 054) provides for workers accommodation (one per site) as a permitted activity. No other residential accommodation is provided for. Accessory retail is provided for as permitted with more onerous qualifications than the operative provisions. Accessory offices, depending on size, are either permitted or discretionary activities.

5.11. As I state in paragraph 12.6 of my Evidence Report, the submitter has obtained land use resource consent for 55 Takanini School Road (land use resource consent LU9629) which comprises:

(a) Land zoned Residential 8 under Plan Change 15 – Takanini Area 6:88 (stand alone) residential units; and

(b) Land zoned Industrial 1 under Plan Change 15 – Takanini Area 6:

(i) 21 x two level studio/warehouse units;

(ii) 27 x light industrial units;

(iii) 2280m² of retail activity (in units of 200m² or less); and

(iv) 32 x apartment units (above retail).

Response

Wallace Group Limited

5.12. I consider that the Takanini precinct falls into a similar category to the Flat Bush and New Lynn precincts cited by Mr Duguid. Therefore I consider that the appropriate time to review the retention of precinct plans and provisions is once a sub precinct or precinct is fully developed. I do not therefore consider it necessary to modify the precinct plans as requested by Wallace Group Limited.

Takanini Central Limited

5.13. As I state in 5.12 above, the Takanini precinct is one which has a finite life. I do not see a need to provide specifically for the activities sought by the applicant because the applicant has resource consent to develop the land at 55 Takanini School Road which includes the residential activities, retail, and studio warehousing for which provision has been sought. The LI zone provides for the office activities for which provision in the Activity Table has been sought.

6. TAKANINI SUB-PRECINCT C

Matters raised in evidence

6.1. Mr Smith, for TONEA Properties NZ Limited, in paragraph 3 of his planning evidence on behalf of TONEA Properties NZ Limited (submission 4885 and FS1180) states that it is not necessary to apply a precinct to 30 Walters Road. In paragraph 5 he states that if the Panel considers that a sub-precinct should apply, the provisions should be amended as set out in his statement to provide more consistency with the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section), particularly in relation to the activity status of office and other activities that are permitted under the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section.

6.2. Mr Smith in paragraph 93ff of his planning evidence considers that it is no longer appropriate to restrict activity on 30 Walters Road and that Environment Court decisions relating to Plan Change 12 and therefore precinct provisions should be reviewed as they are no longer appropriate, in particular because of the PAUP Town Centre zoning of the Southgate area to the west of the railway line.

6.3. Mr Smith states in paragraphs 95 and 96 that if a precinct is to be retained for Takanini sub-precinct C, its provisions should be amended to align with the operative District Plan by:

(a) Providing for retail GFA infringements as RD rather than NC.

(b) Providing for offices, department stores and cinemas as permitted activities (c) Providing for retail tenancy size infringements along the Arion Road frontage as DA rather than NC.

6.4. Mr Smith (paragraph 95) and Mr Rae (for TONEA) (paragraphs 143 to 146) seek an 18 metre height limit for sub-precinct C as they consider that a 12 metre height limit is no longer appropriate given that the Takanini Town Centre now has a height of 18 metres and the Mixed Use zone also has a maximum overall height of 18 metres.

Analysis

6.5. PC12 included the determination of the appropriate zoning and uses and sizes for the Addison Local Centre and for the area now shown as Takanini Sub-precinct C. The operative provisions of PC12 were determined following three Environment Court decisions (and a correction) and a High Court decision.

6.6. The retail cap provisions are one of the key PC12 provisions. I consider that providing for retail GFA infringements as RD would be more likely to undermine those provisions than providing for them as NC.

6.7. Offices are permitted activities throughout the sub-precinct C area under the operative PC12 District Plan provisions. They are not listed in the sub-precinct C provisions contained in the PAUP. A clause preceding the precinct Activity Table notes that the underlying zone and Auckland-wide activity tables apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified in the Activity Table. In the MU zone (as set out in the proposed provisions attached to the Closing Remarks for the Council in Topic 051 to 054), offices up to 500m² per site are provided for as permitted activities, and larger offices are discretionary activities. I consider that this provides sufficient provision for offices in sub-precinct C and that offices do not need to be provided for as a permitted activity.

6.8. I consider that Department Stores, as a subset of retail, should continue to comply with the retail cap provisions for Area 2 of sub-precinct C.

6.9. Cinemas (defined as “Entertainment Facilities”) are permitted activities throughout the sub-precinct C area under the operative PC12 District Plan provisions. They are identified as non complying activities in the MU zone (as set out in the proposed provisions attached to the Closing Remarks for the Council in Topic 051 to 054), Having considered the submitter’s evidence I consider that to reflect the operative provisions, cinemas should be provided for as a permitted activity in sub-precinct C.

6.10. I consider that in order to reflect the zone interface provisions of PC12, tenancy size infringements along the Arion Road frontage should remain as NC rather than DA as sought by the submitter.

6.11. The operative height limit for what is now the Takanini Town Centre is 12 metres, and for Takanini sub-precinct C is 12 metres. In the PAUP, as amended, the Takanini Town Centre now has a height of 18 metres and the Mixed Use zone also has a maximum overall height of 18 metres (as set out in the proposed provisions attached to the Closing Remarks for the Council in Topic 051 to 054). The operative height limit for the Residential 8 land adjoining Arion Road is 9 metres. The maximum heights for the MHS and MHU land in the vicinity of sub-precinct C are proposed to be 9 metres and 12 metres respectively (as outlined in the provisions attached to the Rebuttal Evidence of Nicholas Roberts on behalf of the Council Planning 6 October 2015 for Topics 059, 060, 062 and 063).

6.12. In paragraph 12.18 of my Evidence Report I agreed that the operative height of 12 metres (as determined in PC12) should be retained for sub-precinct C. However, I omitted to include that rule as an exception to Rule 4.2 in the proposed precinct provisions that were attached to my Evidence Report. This was an error. Having reviewed the operative sub-precinct C provisions, I now agree with Mr Smith and Mr Rae that given that the operative heights in what is now the Takanini Town Centre and the operative Takanini Mixed Use zone were the same, there is no particular reason to limit height in sub-precinct C to 12 metres, and that the MU 18 metre zone height can apply to sub-precinct C. In particular I agree that effects of increased height on the adjacent residential land can be controlled by the height in relation to boundary provisions for the Mixed Use zone (as set out in as amended by track changes as set out in Council’s Closing Remarks for Topic 051 to 054) which will:

(a) manage the effects of building height;

(b) allow reasonable sunlight and daylight access to public open space excluding streets, and neighbouring zones; and (c) manage visual dominance effects on neighbouring zones where lower height limits apply.

Response

6.13. I confirm that I do not support the rezoning of 30 Walters Road to Town Centre. I do not therefore support changes to precinct provisions to reflect a town centre rezoning.

6.14. I do not consider that a TC zoning on the Southgate Centre area west of the railway line removes the need for a precinct for 30 Walters Road.

6.15. I consider that the sub-precinct C provisions should reflect the provisions of PC12 and that given the extent of analysis through litigation resulting in the operative controls, that the precinct provisions should continue to reflect those controls.

6.16. Having further considered the appropriateness of the provisions against the submitter’s evidence I do however consider that making the following amendments to the precinct provisions will better reflect the operative controls:

(a) Providing for cinemas as a permitted activity in Takanini sub-precinct C.

6.17. Having reviewed the operative and sub-precinct C provisions height provisions, and the height in relation to boundary provisions for the MU zone in sub-precinct C, and given that the operative heights in what is now the Takanini Town Centre and the operative Takanini Mixed Use zone were the same, I consider that there is no particular reason to limit height in sub-precinct C to 12 metres, and that the MU 18 metre zone height can apply to sub-precinct C.

7. APPLYING THE UNDERLYING MU ZONE HEIGHT TO TAKANINI SUB-PRECINCT C AND TAKANINI SUB-PRECINCT D

Matters raised in evidence

7.1. Ms Baverstock in her planning evidence on behalf of the New Zealand Defence Force (submission 838-47) in paragraph 53 seeks that the objectives and policies from Section 5B.2.2.7.1.2 Papakura Military Camp and the rules contained in Part 16 of the Papakura District Plan are replicated in the objectives, policies, rules, development controls and assessment criteria for Takanini sub-precinct D. New Zealand Defence Force have provided suggested track changes as part of their evidence. 7.2. Ms Allan in her evidence for Transpower New Zealand Limited seeks the retention of a rule providing for the provision and maintenance of fencing around its Takanini substation at 65 Airfield Road.

Analysis

New Zealand Defence Force

7.3. Ms Baverstock’s planning evidence contains track changes to the Takanini precinct provisions for Council’s consideration. I agree in principle with Ms Baverstock’s evidence that objective, policy and rule amendments should be made if required to better reflect provisions relating to the Papakura Military Camp in Part 16 of the Papakura District Plan which contains the provisions of a 2010 Consent Order (between Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Incorporated (ENV-2009- AKL- 000380), New Zealand Defence Force (ENV-2009-AKL 000396) and Papakura District Council)

7.4. I have reviewed the Zealand Defence Force’s track changes and consider that most of their track changes do provide further clarity. I do not agree however that the two Diagrams “Grove Road – Specific Design Requirements” and “Grove Road Cross Section Design” in Section Three, Appendix 16B – Subdivision Design Assessment Criteria (Residential 8A & 8B zones) need to be included in the precinct provisions.

7.5. Mr Evan Keating of Auckland Transport has advised that the changes sought by the New Zealand Defence Force seek to retain specific development controls and design changes to the Grove Road frontages (both their site and the east side of the road). Some of these design changes (proposed rule 3.3a) prevent new roads from aligning with the existing entrance (Main Gate) by requiring a 50m off set between them. Where new roads are proposed, they are also to include design features to protect the military camp from unauthorised vehicle access (proposed rule 3.3b).

7.6. Mr Keating advises however that these rules (and other provisions) refer to Takanini Precinct plan 4 in the New Zealand Defence Force’s tracked changes, which includes both detailed design for the above issues but also a complete road cross section for the stretch of Grove Road which abuts the Military Camp. This cross section is identical to the one in the operative plan and reflects design standards in force at that time (under Papakura District Council) but which would not be considered appropriate nor acceptable when assessed against current design standards (not including stormwater which would may also require a different design in this location). By way of example, the cross section features footpaths which do not meet minimum dimensions as defined in Auckland Transport’s Code of Practice (ATCOP) and vehicle lanes which are wider than the maximum permitted for safety reasons. The rule also requires significant vesting of land from properties (approximately 5.5m) from properties to the east to accommodate this road, yet there is little transport justification for such a vesting as the cross section contains superfluous elements such as a wide central median.

7.7. The Council’s position (in consultation with Auckland Transport) has been to highlight such diagrams and text in the PAUP as indicative only as road design is subject to other requirements such as engineering and stormwater standards which are constantly evolving. The text which Council has used in other precincts is: all roads etc…. shall be “designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Auckland Transport and any relevant code of practice or engineering standards”.

7.8. I therefore do not support the transfer of the diagrams to the precinct provisions, but have included text amendments which recognise the matters to which they relate.

Transpower New Zealand Limited

7.9. Ms Allan, on behalf of Transpower New Zealand Limited, in paragraphs 5.19 to 5.23 objects to the removal of development controls within the Takanini precinct relating to fencing requirements around the substation and notes that their removal is beyond the relief sought in the submission.

7.10. Ms Allan notes that a fence is in place around the Takanini sub station but is concerned that over time individual owners may seek to reduce or remove it.

7.11. I consider that a rule requiring construction and ongoing maintenance of fencing around Transpower’s Takanini sub station is no longer necessary. Fencing has been constructed and Council’s Papakura resource consents officers advise that subdivision consent conditions for the residential land adjoining the substation include consent notices which require the ongoing maintenance of this fence. Response

New Zealand Defence Force

7.12. I agree in part with the objective, policy and rule amendments made in the track changes to Ms Baverstock’s evidence to better reflect provisions relating to the Papakura Military Camp in Part 16 of the Papakura District Plan which contains the provisions of a 2010 Consent Order (between Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Incorporated (ENV-2009- AKL- 000380), New Zealand Defence Force (ENV-2009-AKL 000396) and Papakura District Council). In particular I do not see a necessity to include the operative diagrams from Section Three, Appendix 16B – Subdivision Design Assessment Criteria (Residential 8A & 8B zones) in the precinct provisions.

Transpower New Zealand

7.13. I do not agree with Ms Allan that it is necessary to retain development controls within the Takanini precinct relating to fencing requirements around the substation.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1. I have reviewed the evidence lodged on behalf of submitters for Topic 081 in relation to the Takanini precinct. The evidence for the submitters has not disclosed anything that would lead me to resile from the position outlined in my Evidence Report that the application of the Takanini precinct is appropriate.

8.2. I am of the view, however, that amendments should be made to the provisions in relation to the following matters:

(a) Amend the provisions for sub-precinct C to apply the MU zone height of 18 metres. In paragraph 12.18 of my Evidence Report I agreed that the operative height of 12 metres (as determined in PC12) should be retained for sub-precinct C. However, in error I omitted the inclusion of this exception to Rule 4.2 in the proposed precinct provisions that were attached to my Evidence Report. Therefore no further amendment to the precinct provisions is actually required to apply the MU zone height of 18 metres because Takanini precinct Rule 4.2 states that the development controls in the relevant underlying zones apply in the Takanini precinct and sub precincts unless otherwise specified. (b) Amend the provisions for sub-precinct C to provide for cinemas as a permitted activity to better reflect Rule 16.5.3.1 of the Papakura District Plan; and

(c) Amend the provisions for sub-precinct D to better provide for operative provisions relating to the New Zealand Defence Force’s Papakura Military Camp.

8.3. I am of the view that these amended precinct provisions most appropriately meet the purpose of the Act.

Joy Martha LaNauze

29 February 2016

Editorial notes:

Council's proposed changes are shown in strikethrough and underline

Black text changes record amendments proposed in track changes version

Yellow highlighted text changes record amendments that are considered to be outside the scope of submissions

Grey highlighted text changes records amendments that are consequential amendments from previous hearings/evidence. Any additional changes to consequential amendments are highlighted in pink.

Red text changes record amendments proposed in rebuttal evidence.

Numbering of this precinct will be reviewed as part of the overall review of the UP numbering protocols.

6.25 Takanini

Comment [1]: Editorial amendment to ensure 1. Precinct description consistency of precincts across PAUP.

The objectives and policies of the following underlying zones apply to the sub-precincts Comment [2]: Editorial amendments to ensure below, unless otherwise specified: consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. The underlying zoning of land within this precinct is listed below. Refer to the planning maps Comment [3]: Editorial amendments to ensure for the location and extent of the precinct.: consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. Sub-precinct A: • Public Open Space - Informal Recreation • Light Industry Comment [4]: Editorial amendment to correct an • Mixed Housing - Suburban Single House error in the notified PAUP. Sub-precinct B: Local Centre Sub-precinct C: Mixed Use Sub-precinct D: Mixed Housing Suburban Sub-precinct E: Single House.

Refer to Takanini Precinct Plan 1 for the location and extent of the Takanini precinct and sub-precincts. Figure 1 relates to soakage pit requirements. Takanini Precinct Plan 2 is a landscape plan for sub-precinct A. Takanini Precinct Plan 3 identifies two retail areas within sub-precinct C (Areas 1 and 2).

Comment [5]: Consequential amendment from The Takanini precinct applies to some 320290 hectares of land. The precinct is divided into reducing the size of the precinct. 5 sub-precincts (A to E) which seek to encourage the subdivision and development of this land in a comprehensive manner to achieve a quality built and well-connected environment. The Takanini precinct contains development controls in response to known geotechnical limitations.

Comment [6]: Editorial amendments to ensure 1.1 Sub-precinct A consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. Comment [7]: Correction: notified figure Takanini sub-precinct A applies to some 41.5 53.5 hectares of land between the Papakura incorrect. Stream, Takanini School Road, Manuroa Road and Porchester Road. This land is currently undeveloped. The sub-precinct provisions include specific development controls relating to vehicle access, overland flowpaths and geotechnical constraints. Subdivision is to be in compliance with Takanini Precinct Plan 1 in order to require connections to the surrounding area.

The underlying zones within the sub-precinct are: •Public Open Space - Informal Recreation •Light Industry Comment [8]: Amendment to correct error in •Mixed Housing –Suburban Single House notified PAUP.

Subdivision and development in sub-precinct A must comply with the landscape plan in Takanini Precinct Plan 2.

An extension to the Mahia Branch Sewer is proposed within sub-precinct A. Its indicative location is shown on Takanini Precinct Plan 1. A Mahia Branch Sewer Network Utility Yard applies to sub-precinct A to protect the future alignment of the Sewer Line.

When proposing a new site or building part or all of which will be located within the Mahia Branch Sewer Line Network Utility Yard, consultation with Watercare Services Limited is advised. Evidence of consultation with and support or comments from Watercare should be included in the subdivision or resource consent application.

Comment [9]: Editorial amendments to ensure 1.2 Sub-precinct B consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. Takanini sub-precinct B applies to some 4.5 hectares of land with frontage to Porchester Road. This land is currently undeveloped. Subdivision and development should achieve a quality and well-connected environment, which will principally serve the local convenience Comment [10]: Framework plan reference needs of the surrounding residential area within Takanini sub-precinct D. The preparation removed. See Submissions from NZDF(838-67), and development of framework plans is encouraged in this sub-precinct to avoid ad hoc Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye development. The underlying zone is Local Centre. Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). 1.3 Sub-precinct C Comment [11]: Editorial amendments to ensure consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. Takanini sub-precinct C applies to some 5.4 hectares of land bounded by Walters Road, Arion Road and the North Island Main Trunk Railway. This land is partly developed. This sub-precinct is intended to provide a transition between the Takanini Town Centre and residential land in Takanini sub-precinct D. It provides for residential and smaller scale commercial activity that does not cumulatively affect the viability of nearby centres. A mix of activities is encouraged in this sub-precinct, however there is a limitation on the total gross floor area of large format retail. This limitation is intended to ensure that development is of a scale that is appropriate to the adjoining residential area. Sub-precinct C is also subject to a number of development controls in response to known geotechnical limitations. The underlying zone is Mixed Use.

Takanini Precinct Plan 3 identifies two retail areas within sub-precinct C (Areas 1 and 2), for which special provision is made in the activity table.

Comment [12]: Editorial amendments to ensure 1.4 Sub-precinct D consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. Comment [13]: Consequential amendment Takanini sub-precinct D applies to some 214 184 hectares of land throughout the wider (precinct size reduced). precinct, and covers the largest land area of the five sub-precincts. It also contains a number of development controls in response to known geotechnical limitations which have been Comment [14]: Framework plan reference identified through legacy structure planning. The preparation and development of framework removed. See Submissions from NZDF(838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland plans is encouraged in this sub-precinct to avoid ad hoc development. The underlying zone Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- is Mixed Housing - Suburban. 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- This area includes reverse sensitivity provisions relating to the New Zealand Defence 31). Force’s Papakura Military Camp, which is significant infrastructure, and to Transpower’s site Comment [15]: NZDF (838-47) and Transpower (3766-348). at 65 Airfield Road. Comment [16]: Rebuttal amendment in response to NZDF (838-47) evidence. See Auckland District Plan (Papakura section) 5B.2.2.7.1.2.1 and closing 1.5 Sub-precinct E remarks on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 012 (Significant Infrastructure and Energy). Comment [17]: Editorial amendments to ensure Takanini sub-precinct E applies to two one areas of land. consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. Comment [18]: Consequential amendment from The eastern portion is between Papakura-Clevedon and Old Wairoa rRoads. The western reducing the size of the precinct. portion includes the Papakura Military Camp site previously occupied by the NZ Army. The Papakura Military Camp encompasses Lot 1 DP 329779 Secs 1-4 SO 317074, Pt Lot 1 DP 168748 Secs 3-4 SO 70474 and Pt Lot 1 DP 170957. Development at a low density is encouraged in this sub-precinct to assist in maintaining the elements of amenity and open space character. The area bounded by Papakura-Clevdon and Wairoa roads incorporates aspects of the relevant legacy structure plan. Sub-precinct E contains development controls in response to the known geotechnical limitations in the area, and provides for a landscape buffer between development along Papakura-Clevedon rRoad and the adjacent rural zone. Comment [19]: Grammatical amendment. So that development in this sub-precinct takes place in a manner that maintains amenity and open space character, the preparation of framework plans is encouraged before subdivision and development commences. The underlying zone is Single House.

2. Objectives

Comment [20]: Editorial amendments to ensure The underlying zones and Auckland-wide objectives apply in this precinct, in addition to consistency of terminology of precincts throughout those are as listed in the relevant underlying zones except as specified below. the PAUP.

1. Subdivision and development occurs in a coordinated way that implements Takanini Precinct Plan 1.

2. Subdivision and development avoids, remedies or mitigates the potential adverse effects from developing on land subject to stormwater and geotechnical constraints.

3. Subdivision and development occurs in a way that recognises and provides for the ongoing (current and future) operation of the Papakura Military Camp, which is Comment [21]: Rebuttal amendment in response significant infrastructure. to NZDF (838-47) evidence. See Auckland District Plan (Papakura section) 5B.2.2.7.1.2.2 and closing remarks on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 2.1 Sub-precinct A 012 (Significant Infrastructure and Energy). Comment [22]: Editorial amendments for readability. 3. Subdivision supports walking, cycling, and public transport use and takes advantage of proximity to public transport routes, neighbourhood centres and local parks.

4. Subdivision and development implements the landscape plan in Takanini Precinct Plan 2.

Comment [23]: Editorial amendments for 2.2 Sub-precinct B readability. Comment [24]: Framework plan reference has been removed. Refer submissions from NZDF(838- 5. Subdivision and development occurs in a way that avoids ad hoc development and 67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye implements any approved framework plan. Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). 6. Commercial activity development is of a scale that is appropriate to the adjoining residential area.

Comment [25]: Editorial amendments for 2.3 Sub-precinct C readability. 7. Large format retail development is of a scale that provides a transition between the residential area and the Takanini Town Centre.

8. Retail tenancies are of a scale appropriate to the sub-precinct's size and adjoining residential area.

Comment [26]: Editorial amendments for 2.4 Sub-precinct D readability.

9. Subdivision supports walking, cycling, and public transport use and takes advantage of proximity to public transport routes, neighbourhood centres and local parks.

10. Subdivision and development occurs in a way that avoids ad hoc development and Comment [27]: Framework plan reference has implements any approved framework plan. been removed. See submissions from NZDF(838- 67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye 11. Subdivision and development of land avoids, remedies, or mitigates potential reverse Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra sensitivity effects on the Papakura Military Camp, particularly in relation to noise, Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). visual amenity, traffic, privacy (including overlooking), safety and security effects. Comment [28]: Rebuttal amendment in response to NZDF (838-47) evidence. 2.5 Sub-precinct E Comment [29]: Editorial amendments for readability.

11. Subdivision and development is designed so that it maintains significant elements of existing amenity values and character, and implements any approved framework Comment [30]: Framework plan reference has plan. been removed. See submissions from NZDF(838- 67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye 3. Policies Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). The underlying zones and Auckland-wide policies apply in this precinct, in addition to those Comment [31]: Editorial amendments to ensure policies in the relevant residential and business zones apply except as specified below: consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. 1. Require subdivision and development to be designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects from developing on land subject to stormwater and geotechnical constraints.

2. Require the key structural elements of Takanini Precinct Plan 1 to be incorporated into all subdivision and development.

Comment [32]: Editorial amendments to ensure 3.1 Sub-precinct A consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP.

3. Subdivision should occur in a way that supports various transport choices and takes advantage of proximity to public transport routes, neighbourhood centres and local parks.

Comment [33]: Editorial amendments to ensure 3.2 Sub-precinct B consistency of terminology of precincts throughout 4.Encourage the preparation and development of a framework plan to enable the PAUP.. Comment [34]: Framework plan reference comprehensively planned subdivision and development, and avoid ad hoc development. removed. See submissions from NZDF(838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye 54. Limit the total gross floor area of commercial activities. Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). 3.3 Sub-precinct C Comment [35]: Editorial amendments to ensure consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. 6.5. Limit the total gross floor area of large format retail.

7.6. Limit the size of retail tenancies on Arion Road.

Comment [36]: Editorial amendments to ensure 3.4 Sub-precinct D consistency of terminology of precincts throughout the PAUP. 8.7. Subdivision should occur in a way that supports various transport choices and takes advantage of proximity to public transport routes, neighbourhood centres and local parks.

8. Require subdivision and development to be undertaken in accordance with Takanini precinct Plan 1 and: i. The rules and development controls (maximum height and specific upper- floor design controls) within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area; and ii. The rules and subdivision controls for road design and offset opposite Comment [37]: Rebuttal amendment in response Papakura Military Camp Access. to NZDF (838-47) evidence.

9.Encourage the preparation and development of a framework plan to enable Comment [38]: Framework plan reference comprehensively planned subdivision and development, and avoid ad hoc development. removed. See Submissions from NZDF(838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye Sub-precinct E Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra 10.Framework plans are encouraged to ensure sSubdivision and development in sub- Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). precinct E is should be designed and implemented in a manner that maintains significant Comment [39]: Framework plan reference elements of existing amenity values and character. removed. See Submissions from NZDF(838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye Sub-precincts B, D and E Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). Edited policy retained. 11.Encourage consultation with any other owners of land within a sub-precinct when preparing a framework plan. 12Require a framework plan to demonstrate the interrelationship and future integration with: a.other land within in the sub-precinct, where a framework plan can only be prepared for part of a sub-precinct. Comment [40]: Framework plan reference b.any neighbouring sub-precinct. removed. See Submissions from NZDF(838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). Precinct Rules

6.25 Takanini

Comment [1]: Editorial amendments so as to The provisions in Chapter I for the underlying zones and Auckland-wide provisions of Chapter H apply ensure consistency of terminology of precinct in this precinct unless otherwise specified below. provisions through the PAUP.

Comment [2]: Editorial amendments so as to The activities, controls and assessment criteria in the relevant underlying zones and Auckland-wide ensure consistency of terminology of precinct rules apply in the following precinct and sub-precincts unless otherwise specified. provisions through the PAUP.

Comment [3]: Amendment consequential to the The rules in this section implement the objectives and policies in Chapter F, section 6. evidence of Linley Wilkinson for Topic 004 (Chapter G). Comment [4]: Editorial amendments to ensure Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct. Refer to Takanini Precinct Plan consistency in terminology across all PAUP 1 for the location and extent of the precinct and sub-precincts. precincts.

Introduction

Comment [5]: Editorial amendments to ensure The underlying zoningses of land within the Takanini precinct for the sub-precincts are: consistency in terminology across all PAUP • sub-precinct A Light Industry, Mixed Housing Single House and Public Open Space - Informal precincts. Recreation zones • sub-precinct B Local Centre zone • sub-precinct C Mixed Use zone • sub-precinct D Mixed Housing zone • sub-precinct E Single House zone.

The Papakura Military Camp encompasses LOT 1 DP 329779 SECS 1-4 SO 317074, PT LOT 1 DP Comment [6]: NZDF land removed from 168748 SECS 3-4 SO 70474 and PT LOT 1 DP 170957 precinct. Stormwater amendment for consistency. See NZDF Submission 838-47.

1. Activity table

The activities in the relevant underlying zones apply in the Takanini precinct unless otherwise Comment [7]: Editorial amendments to ensure specified in the activity table below. consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. The underlying zone and Auckland-wide activity tables apply in this precinct unless otherwise Comment [8]: Editorial amendments to ensure specified below. consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. Activity Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub- precinct precinct precinct precinct precinct A B C D E Any activity with vehicle access from road RD NA RD RD RD frontages marked as vehicle access restriction in Takanini Precinct Plan 1 Development

The modification of the indicative overland RD NA NA NA NA Comment [9]: Editorial amendment for clarity. flowpaths depicted on Takanini Precinct Plan 1 A framework plan, amendments to an approved NA RD NA RD RD framework plan, or a replacement framework plan complying with clause 3 below, provided that in sub-precinct B the total GFA for commercial activities in the sub-precinct will not exceed

2 Comment [10]: Framework plan references 10,000m removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland A framework plan, amendments to an approved NA NC NA NC NC Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye framework plan, or a replacement framework plan Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79), Cabra not complying with clause 3 below, or that would Developments Ltd (5515-11), CDL Land Ltd (3159- 31). result in a total GFA for commercial activities in excess of 10,000m2 in sub-precinct B Any development in compliance with an approved NA RD NA RD RD framework plan Any development not in compliance with an NA NC NA NC NC approved framework plan, or prior to the approval of a framework plan Commerce

Commercial activities in sub-Precinct B provided NA RD NA NA NA that the total GFA for commercial activities in the Comment [11]: Southgate Centre Limited and sub-precinct will not exceed 10 000m² Retail Holdings Limited seek the retention of the Takanini Sub-precinct B objectives and policies Commercial activities in excess of 10 000m² in NA NC NA NA NA (1705-14) and rules (1705-15). sub-precinct B

One supermarket up to 3500m2 GFA in sub- NA C NA NA NA Comment [12]: Southgate Centre Limited and precinct B Retail Holdings Limited seek the retention of the Takanini Sub-precinct B objectives and policies One service station in sub-precinct B NA C NC NA NA (1705-14) and rules (1705-15). Retail greater than 450m2 per site in sub-precinct NA NC NA NA NA Comment [13]: Editorial amendment for clarity. B Comment [14]: Editorial amendment for clarity. Commercial activities that will result in the NA NC NA NA NA cumulative total GFA for the sub-precinct B Comment [15]: Editorial amendment for clarity. exceeding 10,000m2 In Area 1 of sub-precinct C (Takanini Precinct Plan NA NA P NA NA 3), retail greater than 1000m2 GFA per premisetenancy, not exceeding a total GFA for

2 Comment [16]: Consistency with planning Area 1 of 11,000m evidence of J Wyatt for Council in Topics 051-054 Centre Zones, Business park and industries zones, In Area 1 of sub-precinct C (Takanini Precinct Plan NA NA NC NA NA Business activities and Business Controls. 3), retail greater than 1000m2 GFA per premise Comment [17]: Consistency with planning tenancy in Area 1 of sub-precinct C, exceeding a evidence of J Wyatt for Council in Topics 051-054 total GFA for Area 1 of 11,000m2 Centre Zones, Business park and industries zones, Business activities and Business Controls. Retail greater than 1000m2 GFA per premise, NA NA NC NA NA Comment [18]: Amendment to remove repetition. exceeding a total GFA for the sub-precinct of 11,000m2

Retail no greater than 3,500m2 GFA in Area 2 of NA NA P NA NA sub-precinct C (Takanini Precinct Plan 3) provided that the maximum GFA of any individual retail activity within Area 2 shall be limited to 250m2, but with the exception of one individual retail activity of up to 1,000 m2 Retail in Area 2 of sub-precinct C (Takanini NA NA NC NA NA Precinct Plan 3) which: a. provides retail greater than 3,500m2 GFA, or b. involves individual retail activity exceeding the 250m2 limit, or c. otherwise does not fall within the exception for one individual retail activity of up to 1,000 m2 Retail within 10m of the Arion Road frontage of NA NA P NA NA Comment [19]: Editorial amendment for clarity. sub-precinct C with a GFA not exceeding 250m2 Comment [20]: Consistency with planning per premisetenancy evidence of J Wyatt for Council in Topics 051-054 Centre Zones, Business park and industries zones, Retail within 10m of the Arion Road frontage of NA NA NC NA NA Business activities and Business Controls. sub-precinct C with a GFA exceeding 250m2 per Comment [21]: Editorial amendment for clarity. premisetenancy Comment [22]: Consistency with planning evidence of J Wyatt for Council in Topics 051-054 Cinemas NC NC P NC NC Centre Zones, Business park and industries zones, Business activities and Business Controls. Subdivision Comment [23]: Rebuttal amendment in response to TONEA (New Zealand) Limited (4885 and Subdivision that is in compliance with Takanini RD NA NA RD RD FS1180) evidence. See Auckland District Plan (Papakura section) Section Three, Pa 16.5.3.1 Precinct Plan 1, and (in sub-precinct A) Takanini Activity Table Precinct Plan 2 Subdivision not in compliance with Takanini NC NA NA NC NC Precinct Plan 1, or (in sub-precinct A) Takanini Precinct Plan 2 Subdivision and development within the Papakura NA NA NA NC NA Military Camp Height Restriction Area which exceeds the maximum height control or does not Comment [24]: Rebuttal amendment for clarity meet the specific upper floor design controls in response to NZDF (838-47) evidence. Subdivision and development within Sub-precinct NA NA NA DA NA D which does not comply with subdivision control 3: Road Design and Offset Opposite Papakura Comment [25]: Rebuttal amendment for clarity Military Camp Access in response to NZDF (838-47) evidence. A framework plan, amendments to an approved NA RD NA RD RD framework plan, or a replacement framework plan Comment [26]: Framework plan references complying with clause 3 below removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland A framework plan, amendments to an approved NA NC NA NC NC Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye framework plan, or a replacement framework plan Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81) not complying with clause 3 below CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). Any subdivision in compliance with an approved NA RD NA RD RD framework plan Any subdivision not in compliance with an NA NC NA NC NC approved framework plan, or prior to the approval of a framework plan

2. Notification

1. Council will consider restricted discretionary resource consent applications for framework plans for sub-precincts B, D and E (including amendments to any approved framework plan or replacement framework plans) without the need for public notification. However, limited notification may be undertaken, including notice being given to any owner of land within the sub-precinct(s) who has not Comment [27]: Framework plan references provided their written approval. removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland 3. Framework Plans Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), 1. A resource consent application for a framework plan, amendments to a framework plan, or a CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). replacement framework plan must: a. apply only to land within sub-precinct B, D or E that the applicant is the owner of, or to sites in multiple ownership where the landowners in either of those sub-precincts make a joint application. b. implement Takanini Precinct Plan 1. c. comply with: i. the general rules and information requirements applying to framework plans specified at clause 2.6 - General Provisions ii. the special information requirements for framework plans specified in clause 2.7.3 - General Provisions iii. any relevant controls in this precinct. d. in respect of development, seek consent for the following land uses: i. the design and location of roads ii. the layout of buildings iii. the location of public open space iv. landscaping. e. in respect of subdivision, demonstrate: i. in geotechnical terms, that it will create sites suitable for the development of a permitted activity or an activity for which resource consent has been obtained ii. that it will be consistent with the recommendations of the approved Stormwater Catchment Management Plan for the area, or an approved discharge consent iii. in relation to sub-precinct B, that direct vehicle access to any new site from the proposed east-west link road between Porchester and Takanini School Roads, or from Porchester Road itself can be provided for.

4.2. Development controls

The development controls in the relevant underlying zones apply in the Takanini precinct and sub- precincts unless otherwise specified below.

4.2.1 Building height

1. Buildings within sub-precinct B must not exceed 12m in height.

2. Within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area development must comply with the following controls: a. Buildings must not exceed 9 metres in height b. The maximum upper-floor floor-level of any building shall be 3.8 metres above natural ground level (the surveyed Reduced Level pre-development).

3. Any development within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area that cannot comply with the above clause is a non-complying activity.

4.2 2 Yards

1. Sub-precinct E – landscape strip.

2. Each new site adjacent to Papakura-Clevedon Road in sub-precinct E must provide in compliance with Takanini Precinct Plan 1 a minimum of a 3m wide landscape strip planted in grass, trees and shrubs, parallel and adjacent to Papakura-Clevedon Road or landscaping in compliance with a landscape plan approved as part of subdivision.

3. Sub-precinct A – Mahia Branch Sewer Line Network Utility Yard a. a Network Utility Yard of 10m must be provided on both sides of the proposed Mahia Branch Sewer Line shown on Takanini Precinct Plan 1. b. the yard is to be measured (in a horizontal plane at right angles) from both sides of the centre line of the proposed sewer. c. this yard control only applies prior to the construction of the proposed Mahia Branch Sewer Line, and will cease to have effect upon completion of its construction. d. any development which is unrelated to the construction/provision of the sewer line, and which does not comply with the above yard requirement is a restricted discretionary activity.

4.2.3 Impervious area thresholdMaximum Impervious Area Comment [28]: Editorial amendments to ensure consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. 1. Maximum impervious area threshold within sub-precincts B and C: 85 percent. Comment [29]: Editorial amendments to ensure consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. 2. Where the impervious area threshold is exceeded refer to Auckland-wide, Natural Resources Comment [30]: Editorial amendment to reflect section 4.14 - stormwater management. precinct- specific requirement.

4.2.4 Stormwater

1. Within sub-precincts A, D and E:

a. development of all sites must provide for groundwater recharge by providing for soakage disposal of stormwater runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces.

b. a groundwater recharge pit providing temporary storage for stormwater runoff is required for all development sites underlain by the peat soil aquifer. The design of groundwater recharge pits must provide a storage volume between 1.5m below ground level and 0.5m below ground level. The groundwater recharge pits must be designed to be capable of holding the first 15mm of stormwater runoff from the impervious surface areas of any proposed development. The contributing catchment for each individual recharge pit must be limited to a maximum of 500m² to encourage an even spatial distribution of groundwater recharge across the site. The recharge pits must be kept at least 3m away from the edge of any building foundations and at least 2m away from the site boundaries.

c. overflow from the soakage system must be provided for with a piped connection to the public stormwater drainage system.

d. the required volume of soakage pit in relation to the buildings and other impervious surface area for each development is shown in Figure 1: Soakage pit requirements.

2. Within sub-precincts B and C, development of all sites must provide for groundwater recharge by providing for soakage disposal of stormwater runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces and long-term monitoring of factors critical to maintaining ground stability. Any infringement would be assessed on its ability to maintain equivalent infiltration from the site’s Comment [31]: Out of scope amendment to undeveloped state. specify the level of performance required to be met.

3. Within sub-precincts D and E, development of all sites within the area identified as Kirikiri sub- precinct E and that part of sub-precinct D bounded by Old Wairoa Road and Papakura- Clevedon Road on Takanini Precinct Plan 1, must be consistent with the recommendations of Comment [32]: Editorial amendment for clarity. the approved Stormwater Catchment Management Plan for the area or an approved discharge consent.

Figure 1: Soakage pit requirements

4.2.5 Fences

1. The following controls apply to the land adjoining Transpower’s Electricity Substation shown in Takanini Precinct Plan 1 as subject to environmental noise constraints: a. a solid fence is to be erected and maintained along the full length of the common boundary with Transpower’s Electricity Substation at 65 Airfield Road and the land shown in Takanini Precinct Plan 1. b. the fence is to be a minimum standard of 1.8m in height, without gaps and of a minimum thickness of either 20mm boarded and battened timber, or 9mm fibre cement, or other material having equivalent acoustic performance. c. evidence that the fence has been erected and maintained is to be provided to (and required by) council prior to the grant of any building consent for any building containing a habitable room. Comment [33]: Provision no longer considered 2. Any development not complying with the above clause is a non-complying activity. necessary as required fences adjoining Transpower Electricity Substation are now built. 3.1. Fences on the Papakura-Clevedon Road boundary must be constructed of visually permeable materials and must not exceed 1.8m in height.

4.2.6 Noise

1. The following controls apply to the land adjoining Transpower’s Electricity Substation shown in Takanini Precinct Plan 1 as subject to environmental noise constraints:

a. All buildings with habitable rooms are to be designed and constructed so that the noise level in all habitable rooms must not exceed a level of 30dBA L10 (includes 5 decibel adjustment for tonal component as provided for in New Zealand Standard NZS6802:1991 “Assessment of Environmental Sound”), with any required ventilation system (including windows) in operation. All measures to achieve this standard are to meet the provisions of the New Zealand Building Code.

b. At the time of lodging a Building Consent Application with the Council, a certificate from a suitable qualified and experienced acoustic consultant is to be provided to the Council stating that, in respect of all habitable rooms, the buildings will achieve the acoustic performance specified in subclause a. above. If that certificate states that the building will achieve the acoustic performance without any special modifications, the certificate may also state that further testing under subclause c. below is not required.

c. Prior to occupation of habitable rooms, representative testing of the rooms is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant to confirm that the design criterion of 30dBA L10 is being met (unless it has been certified under subclause b. above that further testing is not required), with any required ventilation system (including windows) in operation. Noise levels from any mechanical ventilation system shall be measured at least 1m away from any diffuser.

d. Where the results of any testing carried out in the preceding condition demonstrates that the 30dBA L10 criterion is not achieved, remedial action must be undertaken such that the criterion is met and compliance subsequently is to be certified in compliance with subclause c. above prior to the occupation of the building or the transfer of ownership of the building, whichever occurs first.

2. Any development not complying with the above clause is a non-complying activity.

4.2.7 Landscaping and planting in sub-precinct A

1. Development in sub-precinct A must comply with the landscape plan in Takanini Precinct Plan 2.

2. Any development not complying with the above clause is a non-complying activity.

2.8 Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area Comment [34]: NZDF Submission (838-47).

Purpose

1. Building height restrictions and specific upper floor design controls apply to all development within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area to the east side of Grove Road, immediately opposite the Camp (as defined on Takanini precinct plan 1) to ensure that any potential reverse sensitivity effects, and privacy, overlooking and security effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

2. The maximum height of buildings within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area is 9 metres

3. The maximum upper-floor floor-level of any building within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area is 3.8 metres above natural ground level (the surveyed Reduced Level pre- development).

4. Specific Upper Floor Design Controls Applicable to all Buildings Falling within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area:

Purpose Within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area, all buildings shall be designed to ensure that the number, position and size of first floor windows and doors minimise opportunities for overlooking of the Papakura Military Camp.

Controls (i) First floor windows that offer a sightline to the Papakura Military Camp are only permitted where they serve a bathroom, a stairwell, or where they are designed to incorporate a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres above first floor level and are obscure glazed;

(ii) There must be no first floor door openings, or external balustrade to first floor windows, that offer a sightline to Grove Road;

(iii) There must be no first floor balconies, or other external amenity areas, that offer a sightline to the Papakura Military Camp; and

(iv) There must be no ‘Velux-style’ roof or skylight windows inserted to any roof slope that offer a sightline to Grove Road

5. Any development within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area that cannot Comment [35]: Rebuttal amendment for clarity comply with Clauses 1 and 2, and/or Clauses 4 (i) to (iv) above is a Non-complying Activity. in response to NZDF (838-47) evidence.

5.3. Subdivision controls

The subdivision controls in the Auckland wide rules – subdivision apply in the Takanini precinct and sub-precincts unless otherwise specified below.

1. Subdivision must be generally in accordance with the indicative transport network identified on Precinct Plan 1. Comment [36]: Editorial amendment for clarity.

12. Sub-precinct A – Mahia Branch Sewer Line Network Utility Yard

a. a Network Utility Yard of 10m must be provided on both sides of the proposed Mahia Branch Sewer Line shown on Takanini Precinct Plan 1.

b. the yard is to be measured (in a horizontal plane at right angles) from both sides of the centre line of the proposed sewer.

c. this yard control only applies prior to the construction of the proposed Mahia Branch Sewer Line, and will cease to have effect upon completion of its construction.

d. any part of a proposed lot (other than a lot created for a road, service lane, or reserve) that is unrelated to the construction/provision of the sewer line, and which lies partly or wholly within the Mahia Branch Sewer Line Network Utility Yard is a restricted discretionary activity.

Comment [37]: Rebuttal amendment for clarity 23. Sub-precinct D – Road Design and Offset Opposite Papakura Military Camp Access in response to NZDF (838-47) evidence. Comment [38]: NZDF Submission (838-47). a. Subdivision of land within the block of Takanini sub-precinct D bounded by Grove, Walters and Cosgrave Roads that creates any access road to Grove Road must ensure that any such access road avoids aligning with the existing entrance (Main Gate) to the Papakura Military Camp, by being offset by a minimum of 50 metres when measured from the centreline of the existing entrance (Main Gate) to the centreline of the proposed access road.

b. Subdivision of land within Sub-precinct D that creates lots fronting Grove Road and/or access roads or linkages to Grove Road will need to provide landscape treatment along that part of Grove Road adjacent to the Papakura Military Camp, and specific intersection design where new access roads from land within Sub-precinct D intersect with Grove Road opposite the Papakura Military Camp. The specific intersection design and landscape treatment will minimise the potential reverse sensitivity effects (including overlooking and security effects) of residential development in close proximity to the Papakura Military Camp. Raised table and traffic islands in the connecting road and protection design treatment on the verge opposite the intersection may be required. Roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Auckland Transport and any relevant code of Comment [39]: Rebuttal amendment in response practice or engineering standards. to NZDF (838-47) evidence. See Auckland District Plan (Papakura section) Section Three, Appendix 16B – Subdivision Design Assessment Criteria bc. Subdivision that does not meet clause a above is a discretionary activity. (Residential 8A & 8B zones)

6.4. Assessment - Controlled activities

6.4.1 Matters of control

1. The council will reserve its control over the matters below for the activities listed as controlled Comment [40]: Editorial amendments to ensure in the precinct activity table: consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. 2. Activity: One supermarket up to 3500m2 GFA Matters of Control: i.a. Intensity and Scale ii.b. Traffic iii.c. Noise, lighting and hours of operation iv.d. Design of car parking, access and servicing v.e. Pedestrian access and vehicle linkages

3. Activity: One service station Matters of Control: i.a. Intensity and Scale ii.b. Traffic iii.c. Noise, lighting and hours of operation iv.d. Design of carparking, access and servicing

Comment [41]: Editorial amendments to ensure Table 1 consistency in terminology across all PAUP Activity/Matters Intensity and Traffic Noise, lighting Design of car Pedestrian precincts. of control scale and hours of parking, access access and operation and servicing vehicle linkages One X X X X X supermarket up to 3500m2 GFA One service X X X X station

6.4.2 Assessment criteria In addition to the assessment criteria for supermarkets and service stations in clauses 6 and 8 of the Business zone rules, For development that is a controlled activity in Takanini sub-precinct B, the Comment [42]: Editorial amendments to ensure following assessment criteria apply. consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. 1. Intensity and scale of the activity The intensity and scale of the land use activity, in particular, the number of people involved and traffic generated by the activity, should be compatible with the planned future form and character of the surrounding area.

2. Traffic a. The expected traffic generated by the activity should not create adverse effects on the surrounding transport network, particularly at peak times. Adverse effects may be mitigated by upgrades to road and intersection design, but activities likely to generate high volumes of traffic are not encouraged on local roads.

b. The potential conflict between circulating service traffic, heavy traffic movements, general traffic, pedestrians and cyclists should be managed.

3. Noise, lighting and hours of operation a. Noise and lighting from the activity should not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residential properties. In determining this, consideration will be given to the location of any potentially noisy activities and any proposed measures to mitigate noise including: i. locating noisy activities away from neighbouring residential boundaries ii. screening or other design features iii. the proposed hours of operation iv. the times of goods deliveries.

4. Design of car parking, access and servicing a. The assessment criteria in cClauses 3.3 and 3.4 of the Auckland-wide Transport rules apply. Comment [43]: Editorial amendment for clarity.

5. Pedestrian access and vehicle linkages a. The site design should provide for pedestrian access and vehicle linkages between the supermarket, its car parking and the balance of the sub-precinct.

75. Assessment - Restricted discretionary activities

75.1 Matters of discretion

The council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for the restricted discretionary activities in the precinct activity table, in addition to any matters specified for the activity in the underlying zones or Auckland-wide rules:

For development that is a restricted discretionary activity in the Takanini precinct, the council will restrict its discretion to the following matters, in addition to the matters specified for the relevant Comment [44]: Editorial amendments to ensure restricted discretionary activities in the underlying zone: consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. 1. Vehicle access restriction a. the matters in clause 3.4.1 H1.2.5.1.(5) - Auckland-wide Transport rules. Comment [45]: Editorial amendment for clarity.

2. Modification of indicative flow paths a. design, location and operation of overland flowpaths.

Comment [46]: Framework plan references 3. Framework plans within sub-precinct B that set out: removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), a. layout and design of streets in the sub-precinct Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye b. location of main retail streets in the Local Centre zone and the identification of key frontages where Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), verandahs will be provided CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). c. location of activities d. location of public open space and design principles e. landscaping f. relationship of buildings, open space, streets and the ability to accommodate land uses provided for in the underlying zoning g. staging of development and subdivision h. the provision of infrastructure i. the general matters of discretion for framework plans in clause 2.6.5- General Provisions also apply. 4. Framework plans within sub-precincts D and E that set out: a. layout and design of streets in the sub-precinct b. location of public open space and design principles c. landscaping d. relationship of buildings, open space, streets and the ability to accommodate land uses provided for in the underlying zoning e. staging of development and subdivision f. the provision of infrastructure g. the general matters of discretion for framework plans in clause 2.6.5- General Provisions also apply. 53. Subdivision in compliance with Takanini Precinct Plan 1 a. geotechnical. 64. Subdivision in compliance with Takanini Precinct Plan 2 (for sub-precinct A) a. landscaping and planting. Comment [47]: Framework plan references 7. Subdivision in compliance with an approved framework plan in sub-precincts B, D and E removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), a. geotechnical Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye b. stormwater and catchment management. Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), 8. Subdivision in compliance with an approved framework plan in sub-precinct B CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). a. vehicle access. 9. Development in compliance with an approved framework plan When considering a restricted discretionary resource consent application for development that complies with an approved framework plan, the council will restrict its discretion to the matters set out for the activity in the underlying zone, precinct or Aucklandwide rules.

75.2 Assessment criteria

Comment [48]: Editorial amendments for The following assessment criteria apply in addition to the criteria specified for the relevant restricted consistency with other precincts. discretionary activities in the underlying zone or Auckland-wide rules:

For development that is a restricted discretionary activity in the Takanini precinct, the following assessment criteria apply, in addition to the criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary Comment [49]: Editorial amendments to ensure activities in the underlying zone: consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. 1. Vehicle access restriction

a. refer to the assessment criteria in clause 5.2.6 H1.2.5.2.(6)- Auckland-wide (Infrastructure) Transport.

2. Modification of indicative flowpaths a. the overland flowpaths should be capable of adequately accommodating events up to Comment [50]: Editorial amendments to ensure the 1% AEP in 100-year ARI in compliance with the Catchment Management Plan. consistency in terminology across all PAUP b. any modification(s) to the indicative overland flowpaths should have a less than minor precincts. impact on the downstream and upstream properties in terms of increased flood hazards and erosion potential. c. sites in the upstream and downstream catchment should have the ability to continue to provide for the overland flowpaths in terms of reasonable engineering efforts, constructability and ease of maintenance and operation of the overland flowpaths. Comment [51]: Editorial amendment for clarity. d. activities should not obstruct the overland flowpaths. e. any modification(s) to the general alignment of the overland flowpaths should be limited to the boundaries of the properties included in the resource consent Comment [52]: Framework plan references application. removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland 3. Framework plans in sub-precinct B which provide for the following: Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- a. layout and design of streets in the sub-precinct 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). i.any potential conflict between circulating service traffic, heavy traffic movements, general traffic, pedestrians and cyclists should be managed through the layout and design of streets. •provide for safe pedestrian and vehicular access •ensure adequate connections are provided to adjoining land, particularly the east-west link road that will bisect the sub-precinct to connect Porchester Road •facilitate the creation of a strip shopping environment in the Local Centre zone •facilitate the efficient provision of public transport services within the sub-precinct and accommodate bus stops. ii. Location of main retail streets in the Local Centre zone and the identification of key frontages where verandahs will be provided • The location of the main retail streets should facilitate the creation of convenient and safe pedestrian environments with high amenity values. iii. Location of activities • The inter-relationship between commercial activities and residential activities within the sub-precinct and the adjoining land should avoid conflict between activities. •The mix of activities should achieve a compact retail, commercial and community focused centre that will provide for the day-to-day needs of residents in sub-precinct D. iv. Location of public open space and design • Provision should be made for high quality public open space, including communal open spaces, seating areas, or similar facilities that enhance the community focus of the sub-precinct. -visibility and accessibility of public open space -integration with surrounding development -appropriate sizing and features to meet community and neighbourhood needs Landscaping -maintenance requirements. v. Landscaping • The landscaping concept plan should be designed to create visual interest and contribute to the amenities of the area. •The landscaping should be integrated throughout the sub-precinct and complement the landscaping in the surrounding sub-precinct D and Bruce Pulman Park. •The species proposed should take into account the long-term maintenance requirements and relationship to infrastructure. • The landscaping should provide for both winter sun and summer shade. vi. Relationship of buildings, open space, streets and the ability to accommodate land uses provided for in the underlying zoning • The street layout should create sites that can accommodate land uses provided for in the underlying zoning and sub-precinct. •The layout of buildings should meet relevant land use and development controls. •A coherent spatial structure should be formed by the relationship of buildings to the street, and, one building to another, and to the street •Consideration should be given to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, particularly for the design of streets, car parks, public open space and indicative building layouts. vii. Staging of development and subdivision - The potential adverse effects of any staging of subdivision and/or development should be satisfactorily avoided, remedied or mitigated. viii. Provision of infrastructure •The design of water, wastewater and stormwater services should be adequate to service the future development in the sub-precinct. •Stormwater management should meet the requirements of the stormwater catchment management plan and network discharge consent. ix.General •the general assessment criteria for framework plans in clause 2.6.6 of the General Provisions also apply. 4. Framework plans within sub-precincts D and E: a. Layout and design of streets in the sub-precinct i. Street layout and design should provide for safe pedestrian and vehicle access. ii. Street layout should facilitate the efficient provision of public transport services within the sub- precinct and accommodate bus stops. b. Location of public open space and design i. Provision should be made for high quality public open space, including communal open spaces, seating areas, or similar facilities that enhance the community focus of the sub-precinct. ii. The design principles for public open space should adequately address the following matters: •visibility and accessibility of public open space •integration with surrounding development •appropriate sizing and features to meet community and neighbourhood needs •maintenance requirements. iii. Landscaping • The landscaping concept plan should be designed to create visual interest and contribute to the amenities of the area. • The landscaping should be integrated throughout the sub-precinct and complement the landscaping in the adjacent mixed housing - suburban and public open space zones. • The species proposed should take into account the long-term maintenance requirements and relationship to infrastructure. • The landscaping should provide for both winter sun and summer shade. iv. Relationship of buildings, open space, streets and the ability to accommodate land uses provided for in the underlying zoning • The street layout should create sites that can accommodate land uses provided for in the underlying zoning and sub-precinct. • The indicative layout of buildings should meet relevant land use and development controls. • A coherent spatial structure should be formed by the relationship of buildings to the street, and, one building to another, and to the street v. Staging of development and subdivision • The potential adverse effects of any staging of subdivision and/or development should be satisfactorily avoided, remedied or mitigated. vi. Provision of infrastructure -The design of water, wastewater and stormwater services should be adequate to service the future development in the sub-precinct. -Stormwater management should meet the requirements of the stormwater catchment management plan and network discharge consent. vii.General • the general assessment criteria for framework plans in clause 2.6.6- General Provisions also apply.

53. Subdivision in compliance with Takanini Precinct Plan 1 a. Geotechnical i. It should be demonstrated that the subdivision will create sites that are suitable for the development of a permitted activity or an activity for which resource consent has been obtained.

64. Subdivision in compliance with Takanini Precinct Plan 2 (for sub-precinct A) a. Landscaping and planting i. The following matters should be addressed: • •Provision of footpaths on each side of any proposed street, connecting with wider walking and cycling networks; • Provision of cycle lanes where provided for as part of the Papakura Walking and Cycle Network; • Provision of street lighting; • Provision of trees and other vegetation within the public realm, which assist to add definition and amenity value to the area; • Location of main pedestrian entries and openings within industrial buildings to be located so as to be clearly visible from public streets, particular where a finer grain residential character exists on the other road side; • The extent to which existing trees are incorporated into any proposed development or subdivision to either enhance the amenity of the site and/or not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area; • Where the interface is with the open space surrounding Papakura Stream, demonstrate a programme for establishment of native species forming a strong connection with the stormwater basin and aiding in visual mitigation of proposed built form; • Have regard to any landscape concept plans for adjoining land. 7. Subdivision in compliance with any approved framework plan in sub-precincts B and E a. Geotechnical i. It should be demonstrated that the subdivision will create sites that are suitable for the development of a permitted activity or an activity for which resource consent has been obtained. ii. Stormwater catchment management • It should be demonstrated that the subdivision will be consistent with the recommendations of the approved Stormwater Catchment Management Plan for the area, or an approved discharge consent. Comment [53]: Framework plan references 8. Subdivision in compliance with any approved framework plan in sub-precinct B removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), a. Vehicle access Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye i. Direct vehicle access to any new site from the proposed east-west link road between Porchester Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), Road and Takanini School Road, or from Porchester Road itself, should be consistent with an CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). approved framework plan.

86. Assessment - Development control infringements

8.6.1 Matters of discretion

Comment [54]: Editorial and formatting In addition to the matters set out in clause 2.3 - General Provisions and the specific matters set out for amendments to ensure consistency in terminology the infringement in the relevant underlying zone, the council will restrict its discretion to the matters across all PAUP precincts. below for the relevant development or subdivision control infringement.

In addition to the general matters set out in clause G2.3 of the General Provisions and the specific matters set out for infringements in the underlying zone and Auckland-wide rules, the council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for the relevant development control infringement.

1. Infringement of Building Height (other than building height infringements within the Papakura Military Camp Height Restriction Area): Comment [55]: Rebuttal amendment for clarity in response to NZDF (838-47) evidence. a. Building scale and dominance 2. Infringement of Yards in sub-precinct E a. Rural character 3. Infringement of Network Utility Yard in sub-precinct A a. Geotechnical matters b. Subdivision design c. Location of building platforms d. Location of tree planting and landscaping 4. Infringement of Maximum Impervious Area Comment [56]: Editorial amendment to reflect precinct- specific requirement. a. Extent of impervious area required to provide for groundwater recharge 5. 4. Infringement of Stormwater a. Geotechnical matters including groundwater recharge of underlying peat soils b. Mitigation of adverse effects identified by an approved catchment management Comment [57]: Editorial amendments for plan or discharge consent consistency with development controls. Comment [58]: Editorial amendments to ensure Table 2 consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. Infringement Building Rural Geotechnical Subdivision Location Location of scale and character matters design of tree dominance building planting platforms and landscaping Building X height Yards in X sub-precinct E Network X X X X Utility Yard in sub- precinct A Stormwater X

86.2 Assessment Criteria

Comment [59]: Editorial amendments to ensure In addition to the general assessment criteria in clause 2.3 General Provisions and the specific consistency in terminology across all PAUP assessment criteria for the infringement in the relevant underlying zone, the council will consider the precincts. relevant assessment criteria below for the infringement listed.

In addition to the general assessment criteria in clause G2.3 of the General Provisions and the specific assessment criteria for the infringement in the xxx and Auckland-wide rules, the council will Comment [60]: Editorial amendments to ensure consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the development control infringement. consistency in terminology across all PAUP precincts. 1. Building scale and dominance a. The height, location and design of the building should allow reasonable sunlight and daylight access to: i. adjoining sites, particularly those with residential uses ii. streets and public open spaces. b. The building should demonstrate that the additional height is appropriate in the location and makes a positive contribution to the streetscape. c. The building should not be visually dominating when viewed from the street, neighbouring sites, public open spaces and distant locations.

2. Rural character a. Development that does not comply with the yards will need to demonstrate that: i. The landscaping should be designed to create visual interest and contribute to the amenity of the area ii. The landscaping should be integrated throughout the sub-precinct and complement the landscaping in the adjacent mixed housing and public open space zones iii. The species proposed should take into account the long-term maintenance requirements and relationship to infrastructure. iv. The landscaping should provide for both winter sun and summer shade.

b. Development that does not comply with the landscaping control will need to demonstrate, where appropriate, that the proposed planting regime will, when mature will be of sufficient height, width and density to: i. Fully block the proposed visually permeable, close boarded, solid or overheight fence from view from Papakura Clevedon Road; and ii. Screen any other development from view from Papakura Clevedon Road.

c. The maturity of the plants when planted and their respective growth rates which will determine the length of time that the proposed planting will take to reach a sufficient height, width and density in clause (a) above.

d. Development that does not comply with the fence control will need to demonstrate that the construction timeframes for the proposed visually impermeable, closed boarded, solid or over height fence will allow the fence to be fully blocked by the proposed planting prior to completion.

3.Maximum impervious area

Comment [61]: Editorial amendment to reflect a. Spatial requirements to provide for groundwater recharge. precinct-specific requirement.

Comment [62]: Editorial amendments to ensure 34. Geotechnical matters and stormwater consistency of terminology of precinct provisions a. Stormwater through the PAUP. i. The specific soakage technique(s) proposed and corresponding design parameters must be supported by a detailed site specific stormwater and geotechnical investigation. ii. The long term effects on the building foundations in close proximity to soakage areas should be less than minor. iii. Consistency with any approved catchment management plan or discharge Comment [63]: Editorial amendments for consent and the rationale for any differences. consistency with development controls.

b. Network Utility Yard in sub-precinct A i. The effect of the proposed activity on the geotechnical conditions of land within the Network Utility Yard to the extent that it compromises the ability to construct, operate or maintain the Mahia Branch Sewer Line, taking into account the potential for ground instability, settlement and altering groundwater recharge.

45. Subdivision design a. The subdivision design, including the layout of lots and the location of roads, service lanes, and reserves, should recognise and provide for the construction, operation or future maintenance of the Mahia Branch Sewer Line.

Note: this will normally be effected by easement on the title to the land through which the line passes.

56. Location of building platforms a. The horizontal separation between the outer walls of the building, the building platforms and curtilage to the building should be sufficient to enable the construction, operation or future maintenance of the Mahia Branch Sewer Line.

67. Location of proposed tree planting and other landscaping a. The separation between the location of proposed trees or other landscaping and the proposed Mahia Branch Sewer Line should be sufficient to enable the construction, operation or future maintenance of the Sewer Line, taking into account: i. the likely mature size and spread or drip line of the roots of the trees ii. their potential to interfere with the proposed Sewer Line iii. the appropriateness of locating trees elsewhere.

8. Subdivision within Sub-precinct D which does not comply with the relevant road design and offset requirements a) The extent to which the subdivision is consistent with the Takanini Precinct Plan 1 and the objectives and policies of the Takanini Precinct. b) Whether the alignment of any new access road onto Grove Road achieves the minimum 50 metre offset required between the existing Papakura Military Camp entrance (Main Gate) when measured from the centreline of the existing entrance (Main Gate) to the centreline of the proposed access road; and whether subdivision design provides for landscape treatment along that part of Grove Road adjacent to the Papakura Military Camp, and specific intersection design where new access roads from land within Sub- precinct D intersect with Grove Road opposite the Papakura Military Camp, in such a manner that will ensure that the intent of the Grove Road layout and intersection design and landscape treatment will minimise the potential reverse sensitivity effects (including overlooking and security effects) of residential development in close proximity to the Comment [64]: Rebuttal amendment in response Papakura Military Camp can be achieved. to NZDF (838-47) evidence. See Auckland District Plan (Papakura section) Section Three, Appendix 16B – Subdivision Design Assessment Criteria (Residential 8A & 8B zones) 97. Special information requirements

1. Within sub-precinct A, an application for subdivision must be accompanied by: a. A site specific geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a suitably qualified and Comment [65]: Editorial amendments to ensure experienced geotechnical engineer, confirming that the land will be suitable for consistency of terminology of precinct provisions development. The report must: through the PAUP. i. Make recommendations for future site development in respect of the following matters: • •consolidation settlement • •differential settlement • •foundation bearing pressure • •maintaining groundwater equilibrium • •service lines. • •Include a site specific groundwater recharge system design prepared by a suitably qualified stormwater engineer. • •recommend appropriate specific structural and civil engineering design measures to be undertaken. These measures shall make provision for site specific geotechnical and groundwater recharge requirements, for example foundation design and pre-loading, if required. ii. A landscape concept plan for streets and public open space.

Comment [66]: Editorial amendments to ensure 2. Within sub-precinct A, Aan application for infringement of the stormwater development control consistency of terminology of precinct provisions must be accompanied by: through the PAUP. a. A site specific stormwater and geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a Comment [67]: Editorial amendments to ensure suitably qualified and experienced engineer, which identifies the proposed soakage consistency of terminology of precinct provisions technique(s) and corresponding design parameters. through the PAUP.

3. Within sub-precinct B an application for development must be accompanied by: a. A geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Comment [68]: Editorial amendments to ensure geotechnical engineer, which is specific to the proposal and site and that: consistency of terminology of precinct provisions i. demonstrates the land is suitable for the proposed development through the PAUP. ii. identifies how long-term stability will be monitored. Comment [69]: Editorial amendments for iii. identifies groundwater recharge requirements. consistency with development controls and clarity.

Comment [70]: Framework plan references b. An assessment and plans demonstrating consistency with any approved framework plan. removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), 4. Within sub-precinct B, an application for a framework plan must be accompanied by: Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye a. An infrastructure assessment which demonstrates how compliance with an approved stormwater Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), catchment management plan or discharge consent will be achieved and demonstrates adequate CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). provision can be made for water, wastewater and stormwater reticulation. b. The indicative location of activities, including a supermarket, retail activities, residential activities and shared parking. c. The location and design of all streets, that lie within or are required to access the sub-precinct and including details provision for public transport, pedestrians, cycles and servicing. d. The location of main retail streets in the Local Centre zone and the identification of key frontages where verandahs will be provided. e. The location of public open space and design principles. f. A landscaping concept plan. g. The indicative location of buildings and design guidelines. h. Details of the staging, if any, of subdivision and development.

54. Within sub-precinct B, an application for subdivision must be accompanied by: Comment [71]: Editorial amendments to ensure a. A geotechnical report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical consistency of terminology of precinct provisions engineer, confirming that the subdivided sites will be suitable for development. The through the PAUP. geotechnical report must make recommendations for future site development and monitoring in respect of the following matters: i. Consolidation settlement, including long-term monitoring of factors critical to maintaining ground stability ii. Differential settlement iii. Foundation bearing pressure

Comment [72]: Framework plan references b. An assessment and plans demonstrating consistency with any approved framework plan. removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye b. a geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), geotechnical engineer, which is specific to the proposal and site and that: CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). i. Demonstrates the land is suitable for the proposed development Comment [73]: Editorial amendments to ensure consistency of terminology of precinct provisions ii. Identifies how long-term stability will be monitored. through the PAUP. iii. identifies groundwater recharge requirements. Comment [74]: Editorial amendments for consistency with development controls.

76. Within sub-precinct C, an application for subdivision must be accompanied by: Comment [75]: Editorial amendments to ensure a. A geotechnical report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical consistency of terminology of precinct provisions engineer, confirming that the subdivided sites will be suitable for development. The through the PAUP. geotechnical report must make recommendations for future site development and monitoring in respect of the following matters: i. Consolidation settlement, including long-term monitoring of factors critical to maintaining ground stability ii. Differential settlement iii. Foundation bearing pressure.

87. Within sub-precinct D, an application for subdivision must be accompanied by: a. A site specific geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a suitably qualified and Comment [76]: Editorial amendments to ensure experienced geotechnical engineer, confirming that the land will be suitable for consistency of terminology of precinct provisions development. The geotechnical investigation report must: through the PAUP. i. Make recommendations for future site development in respect of the following matters: • •consolidation settlement • •differential settlement • •foundation bearing pressure • •maintaining groundwater equilibrium • •service lines. • •Include a site specific groundwater recharge system design prepared by a suitably qualified stormwater engineer. • •Recommend appropriate specific structural and civil engineering design measures to be undertaken. These measures shall make provision for site specific geotechnical and groundwater recharge requirements, for example foundation design and preloading, if required.

98. Within sub-precinct D, an application for infringement of the stormwater development control must be accompanied by: a. A site specific stormwater and geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a suitably qualified engineer, which identifies the proposed soakage technique(s) and corresponding design parameters.

9. Within sub-precinct D, evidence of consultation with New Zealand Defence Force is to be provided where subdivision proposes new access roads in the block bounded by Grove, Walters and Cosgrave Roads to Grove Road, or involve the vesting of land for the widening and upgrade of Grove Road Comment [77]: NZDF Submission (838-47).

Comment [78]: Framework plan references 10. Within sub-precinct E, an application for a framework plan must be accompanied by: removed. See Submissions from NZDF (838-67), a. An infrastructure assessment which demonstrates how compliance with an approved stormwater Manuroa Road Limited (4524-51), Sunland Investments Limited and Chan Wah Kim/Hock Lye catchment management plan or discharge consent will be achieved and demonstrates adequate Ng and Teng Yeng Ng/Hoch San Ng (5448- 47),Addison Developments (5711-79 and 5711-81), provision can be made for water, wastewater andstormwater reticulation. CDL Land Ltd (3159-31). b. The location and design of all streets, that lie within or are required to access the sub-precinct and including details provision for public transport, pedestrians, cycles and servicing. c. The location of public open space and design principles. d. A landscaping concept plan. e. The indicative location of buildings and design guidelines. f. Details of the staging, if any, of subdivision and development. g. A soil report that set out the results of soil sampling and testing to verify the presence (or otherwise) of contaminants associated with rural service activity, horticultural use or other contaminating land uses together with recommendations as to (if required) appropriate remedial works.

1110. Within sub-precinct E, an application for subdivision must be accompanied by: a. A site specific geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer, confirming that the land will be suitable for development. The geotechnical investigation report must: i. Make recommendations for future site development in respect of the following matters: • Consolidation settlement • Differential settlement • Foundation bearing pressure • Maintaining groundwater equilibrium • Service lines. • Include a site specific groundwater recharge system design prepared by a suitably qualified stormwater engineer. • Recommend appropriate specific structural and civil engineering design measures to be undertaken. These measures must make provision for site specific geotechnical and groundwater recharge requirements, for example foundation design and pre-loading, if required. • Include an assessment and plans demonstrating consistency with any approved framework plan.

1211. Within sub-precinct E, an application for infringement of the stormwater development control must be accompanied by: a. A site specific stormwater and geotechnical investigation report, prepared by a suitably qualified engineer, which identifies the proposed soakage technique(s) and corresponding design parameters.

1312. Within sub-precinct E, and that part of sub-precinct D bounded by Old Wairoa Road and Papakura-Clevedon Road, an application for subdivision in the area identified as Kirikiri on Takanini Precinct Plan 1 must be accompanied by: Comment [79]: Editorial amendment for clarity. a. A landscape plan that: i. Identifies the location of new vegetation and any existing vegetation to be retained, provides details about the species, height, width and density at maturity, growth rates, compatibility with site conditions and maturity on planting. ii. Identifies the location of new fences and any existing fences to be retained, including details about the construction materials, form and height of fences. iii. Sets out planting and fence construction timeframes and how they relate to each other. iv. Identifies the significant elements of existing amenity values and character and demonstrate how these are to be maintained and integrated with any new landscaping. v. The landscape plan must also identify appropriate types and locations, and timing of planting and fence construction to: • •ensure a consistent landscaping theme along the length of Papakura Clevedon Road Comment [80]: Editorial amendment for clarity. • •create a planted landscape buffer between the combined sub-precincts, Kirikiri Structure Plan, Papakura Clevedon Road, and the adjacent rural zone as a transition between urban and rural development • •maintain identified significant elements of existing amenity values and character • •ensure that any proposed visually impermeable, close boarded, solid or over height fences are fully blocked from view from Papakura Clevedon Road by proposed planting prior to the completion of the fencing. iib. An assessment and plans demonstrating consistency with any approved framework plan.

108. Precinct plans Comment [81]: Minor editorial amendment to ensure consistent numbering. Precinct plan 1: Takanini precinct

E RIV R D HMA RAT

Scale @ 1:17000 D

A

D O

D R #*D

N #*D

O

#*D ´

D

#*D E

#*D V

#*D E

#*D L

#*D -C

#*D A

#*D R

ALFRIST #*D U O D

N ROAD #* K D A P

#*D A

#*D P

#*D

D #* D

#*

D

#*

D

# *

D Takanini

D

D #* D D

D #*

sub-precinct E D

* D # DD

T D D D * DD D # MAGIC W E

AY D D D * D # E

E D D * D #

V R I D D

R T D #* D D

S D D

D #* D D

N D #* W D D

O D #* A

T D M D

L D D #*

R D I

X L D #* E D

D L D #* V O

I D

D #*

F Takanini R

R D D D #*

O D

D #*

D #* D

A D D #*

sub-precinct D D #*

D D D #*

D #*

P D D

D #* D

D #*

O D D #*

D #*

R D #*

D D #*

VE D D #*

RI C D #* D

D D #*

D

ON H D #*

RI D D #* D D E D #* HYP E #*#* S DD T DD DDDDD E D D DDD R DDDDD

R

ROAD D

O DON CLEVE D

A D D D D D O D Takanini V D M D A OA R I D L S N E sub-precinct D D P I O O P N D T N D I N R

D

E O D

D A D S D D T D DD R ISE D E A R D E IST D T V RI D KE D

D

D

D Takanini D D sub-precinct A D D D

D

D T A D

K D AD A D

O N

R D N I A D ART N SP I D S DD C D H

O

O

L D R OA O O R A LD A IE K RF L D AI E IG H D A OA V A R Takanini E URO N AN U M sub-precinct D E D OA IN R ML HA

T REE Takanini A ST TAK sub-precinct D Takanini D DD D sub-precinct B DD D D

D DD D D D D A DD D O DD D D

R D D

M D A D H D A D R Takanini D G D

DD D D D AD sub-precinct D E O D RIV S R D Takanini ER D EN ALT RT W GA sub-precinct C ER ND KI C O D S D G DD D Takanini R A sub-precinct D V E

R O Legend A D

Precincts G R D O #*#*#* landscape strip D V E D DDD D restricted access to road frontages R D D E O D V I reserves A D Takanini R D D

green space in road K sub-precinct D S R neighObourhood park A P U culturaTl heritage site protections D H R E O future hiRgh school & early childhood educatioF n centre N G N land subjeMct to environment noise constraint AD O RO O L OA Local centreT node AIR O D W R GR OL Papakura MiliWtary Camp height restriction area E AT A S stormwater ponYd O UT Note: S H H R I trans power site O R A D D The exact design and aL lignment of reservesA, Indicative road E O Y R N Exisiting watercourse to be retained with riparian reserve each side A O roads etc will be determV ined at the time Dof subdivision. E D E T V Indicative pedestrian & cycle link A N E O N ET L K E U C E R E TR Indicative Mahia branch sewer line location Y S E L C M A RA V S G I W IN N Main storm water corridor B E U R R S O Overland flowpath (overall catchment overland flowpath as per TNCMP) C A S 0 580 D 1,160 M Overland flowplath (zone internal overland flowpath) E L

O

C

Takanini : Precinct plan 1

COPYRIGHT© Auckland Council

Precinct plan 2: Takanini sub-precinct A landscape plan

Precinct plan 3: Takanini sub-precinct C areas

\